Read the full judgment text of CACV 94/2014 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 15 January 2015 before Chu JA and Poon J.
Civil procedure – Mareva injunction – freezing order – further disclosure order – third party bank disclosure – Norwich Pharmacal – Bankers Trust v Shapira jurisdiction – Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim (No 5) – whether plaintiff's claim is proprietary in nature – whether disclosure may extend beyond ambit of underlying domestic Mareva injunction – Hong Kong Injunction granted in aid of Singaporean Injunction under s 21M High Court Ordinance (Cap 4) – liquidator of Singapore-incorporated shipping company sues former CEO and chairman for alleged breach of fiduciary duties and misappropriation of over US$66 million in dividends, bonuses, a Rolls Royce, a yacht and expense reimbursements – claim is monetary, not proprietary – Norwich Pharmacal principles inapposite where no allegation third party bank facilitated misconduct – Court of Appeal exercises discretion afresh – Republic of Haiti v Duvalier, Grupo Torras v Al-Sabah and Seed International v Tracey distinguished as concerning worldwide Mareva injunctions and large-scale fraud with admitted intention to move assets beyond the courts' reach – no Hong Kong or English appellate authority extends ancillary disclosure beyond ambit of underlying Mareva injunction – no evidence of non-compliance with Hong Kong Injunction or Initial Disclosure Order to justify further disclosure – further disclosure described as impermissible fishing expedition – appeal allowed – Further Disclosure Order set aside – plaintiff to pay defendant's costs below and costs of appeal.
Legal issues: Effect of mischaracterising the claim as proprietary on a third-party bank disclosure order ancillary to a Mareva injunction · Whether an ancillary disclosure order may extend beyond the ambit of the underlying domestic Mareva injunction
Outcome: Appeal allowed; Further Disclosure Order set aside.
Cited by 4 cases · Cites 1 case